Thoughts on the RWC

For good or ill the RWC is now considered the be all and end all,Teams build on a 4 or 8 year cycle.
There has never been an unworthy RWC winner,but only 4 countries have done so in 7 attempts
Only 5 actually reached a final,5 of those being the home side including 3 of the winners.

In theory all teams injuries permitting are at full strength,and usually the 8 tier 1 sides are paired
in 4 groups.[roughly]Theory says they will all reach the knockout stages but it seldom happens.

Seeding usually ensures at least 2 SH sides on one side,plus the 3rd SH and England on the other.
That the seeding ensures at least in theory a strong and weak side of the draw and a NH v SH final

In the name of the RWC in that year sides will field weakened teams to save them from injury at
least in theory.Win it and its Honours,medals,then often mass retirement for players/coachs etc.

For the rest it`s jibes,chokers,4 more years,sackings of players /coaches then rebuilding for the next
Outside of the RWC most of the Tier 1 sides plus Italy and Argentina would expect to beat some or
all the tier 1 sides but in RWC`s sometimes fail why?

In theory any team at least of the Tier 1 sides could reach the final and even win it in practice
to date it hasn't been the case,THOUGHTS?

Its certainly the pinacle but theres more to rugby life. Generally the teams who do well are those that absorb injuries hence the 5 teams making the final. Others have the team but not the expanded squad. Extending the duration would benefit the countries but hinder the club game.

I'll take an 80% win rate over the world cup.

So would I.

In fact I am lying, the win rate required is 83%

You're a hard man to please.

NOt really it means we win 10/12 tests per year.

Whilst the last 8 teams may not differ from the usual, after next year you may start to see the qualifiers starting to change as more teams in Africa, Europe and Asia take up the game.

I suspect this could be the last time you see Namibia in a WC for example. Their days as Africas No.2 is going to be challenged seriously.

And all the better for it....

Oh and dont forget as the Aussie Rugby Union goes into financial melt down to due having no fans and competition from the more popular League, Football and Aussie Rules...there will be a place up for grabs in the last 8.

To win the RWC you have to regularly been able to beat everybody.... and to be honest the only NH team that has in post war history ever done that is ENG under SCW.

Even the Wales team of the 70s were inferior to the boks and NZ at the time.

There have been some classic NH moments outside of SCW challenge in 2003.

Ireland beating AUS in 2011
France beating NZ in 2007
France beating NZ in 1999
France beating AUS in 1987
England beating AUS in 1995
England beating AUS in 2007

I guess you could say Wales vs AUS in 1987 too but it wouldn't have counted really in terms of progression and that changes mentality a little... but a win is a win.

Yet the only team that has done back to back victories is ENG in 2003.

To win the rugby world cup you have to be able to win when you are at your worst and when the opposition is at their best. You won't play well in every game, someone will bring it however unlikely (ala RWC final 2011). That's what makes champions.

I think its possible Ireland or Wales could sneak a final with their current squads next year, they would have to have all their players fit and on form and also have a bit of lady luck about them too. All in all its a big ask.

I certainly reckon that its unlikely we get another name on the trophy anytime soon, I'd be surprised if in 50 years time we saw more than 5 different nations on it. Rugby in SA and NZ are just too good.

England have huge player numbers, double that of SA and multiples more than NZ, they can sometimes tip the balance in their favour... the rest are fighting against the tide of 2 huge rugby nations where the sport gets first tabs on youngsters (a crucial aspect) and equal/better numbers and resources then their next competitors.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Whilst the last 8 teams may not differ from the usual, after next year you may start to see the qualifiers starting to change as more teams in Africa, Europe and Asia take up the game.

I suspect this could be the last time you see Namibia in a WC for example. Their days as Africas No.2 is going to be challenged seriously.

And all the better for it....

Oh and dont forget as the Aussie Rugby Union goes into financial melt down to due having no fans and competition from the more popular League, Football and Aussie Rules...there will be a place up for grabs in the last 8.

It's always been like that here though, GF. That still hasn't stopped them from being there or thereabouts in the Top 3 for the best part of 25 years and having a far better record v all European teams.

I actually think they will continue to unearth more great players. I don't think you'll see the game disappear from here in the near future.
We are too far down the track with the sport already and are the most successful nation at juggling 4 winter football codes. We love our sport.

I know it might look very bad from your perspective but don't worry. They still have grand plans despite the recent set backs and I'm sure they will still remain fairly competitive at future World Cups.

Yeah I don't think the game is AUS is in terrible shape. They are say 3 players short of a world dominating side. But its the same 3 players they tend to be unable to produce.

With their limited hand at picking up talented youths not already in other sports they do pretty well for themselves and a strong AUS is in fact certainly in the interests of the sport globally speaking... its the front line of the game against its rivals ...i.e. League.

Whatever the case, the rest of the world is bang in trouble if they were ever to gain ascendency over league in AUS in terms of preference. Unlikely to happen by the looks of it but still.

beale is touring to Europe, he copped a fine for 45 000 Aussie Dollars.

Biltong wrote:
beale is touring to Europe, he copped a fine for 45 000 Aussie Dollars.

not surprised he wouldn't get a clean slate.... I give him less than 12 months before his next hiccup. I reckon he won't make the RWC team... either him leaving or discipline issues again. Shame that.

The way the competition is structured, you have to win three games in the knockout phase, two or three of which may be against "top" opposition (which I define as any of the "big 5" who have competed in a RWC final to date). Given some luck and some unusual results (cf RWC 2007), that could even be reduced to one.

Given that, the big 3 SH sides will always be in there - if they hit a good patch over a couple of weeks they can take down any other team in successive weekends. England can do the same with their strength in depth and ability to resort to a power game if needs be. A few years ago you'd have said the same about France, but they seem in a terrible mess at international level at the moment. Ireland and Wales do not have great records against the SH, so would need some luck from the draw/results elsewhere to get near a final - it's not out of the question but a little unlikely. Scotland, Argentina and Italy - in their current form - could be competitive on their day, but are unlikely to reproduce such form over a series of games against different opposition.

fa0019 wrote:To win the RWC you have to regularly been able to beat everybody.... and to be honest the only NH team that has in post war history ever done that is ENG under SCW.

Even the Wales team of the 70s were inferior to the boks and NZ at the time.

There have been some classic NH moments outside of SCW challenge in 2003.

Ireland beating AUS in 2011
France beating NZ in 2007
France beating NZ in 1999
France beating AUS in 1987
England beating AUS in 1995
England beating AUS in 2007

I guess you could say Wales vs AUS in 1987 too but it wouldn't have counted really in terms of progression and that changes mentality a little... but a win is a win.

Yet the only team that has done back to back victories is ENG in 2003.

To win the rugby world cup you have to be able to win when you are at your worst and when the opposition is at their best. You won't play well in every game, someone will bring it however unlikely (ala RWC final 2011). That's what makes champions.

I think its possible Ireland or Wales could sneak a final with their current squads next year, they would have to have all their players fit and on form and also have a bit of lady luck about them too. All in all its a big ask.

I certainly reckon that its unlikely we get another name on the trophy anytime soon, I'd be surprised if in 50 years time we saw more than 5 different nations on it. Rugby in SA and NZ are just too good.

England have huge player numbers, double that of SA and multiples more than NZ, they can sometimes tip the balance in their favour... the rest are fighting against the tide of 2 huge rugby nations where the sport gets first tabs on youngsters (a crucial aspect) and equal/better numbers and resources then their next competitors.

I thought France beating England 2011 was a highlight of World Cup knock out matches.

France had been thumped by NZ, humiliated by Tonga and run close by Canada before getting up and smashing the English team; then were lucky to only need to defeat 14 Welshmen to make the final.

In terms of form upsets it was dramatic and it sure caused an implosion in the England camp, much vaunted as "big match players" with "mental strength" - well they went to pieces big style after that one!

TobyBryant wrote:

fa0019 wrote:To win the RWC you have to regularly been able to beat everybody.... and to be honest the only NH team that has in post war history ever done that is ENG under SCW.

Even the Wales team of the 70s were inferior to the boks and NZ at the time.

There have been some classic NH moments outside of SCW challenge in 2003.

Ireland beating AUS in 2011
France beating NZ in 2007
France beating NZ in 1999
France beating AUS in 1987
England beating AUS in 1995
England beating AUS in 2007

I guess you could say Wales vs AUS in 1987 too but it wouldn't have counted really in terms of progression and that changes mentality a little... but a win is a win.

Yet the only team that has done back to back victories is ENG in 2003.

To win the rugby world cup you have to be able to win when you are at your worst and when the opposition is at their best. You won't play well in every game, someone will bring it however unlikely (ala RWC final 2011). That's what makes champions.

I think its possible Ireland or Wales could sneak a final with their current squads next year, they would have to have all their players fit and on form and also have a bit of lady luck about them too. All in all its a big ask.

I certainly reckon that its unlikely we get another name on the trophy anytime soon, I'd be surprised if in 50 years time we saw more than 5 different nations on it. Rugby in SA and NZ are just too good.

England have huge player numbers, double that of SA and multiples more than NZ, they can sometimes tip the balance in their favour... the rest are fighting against the tide of 2 huge rugby nations where the sport gets first tabs on youngsters (a crucial aspect) and equal/better numbers and resources then their next competitors.

I thought France beating England 2011 was a highlight of World Cup knock out matches.

France had been thumped by NZ, humiliated by Tonga and run close by Canada before getting up and smashing the English team; then were lucky to only need to defeat 14 Welshmen to make the final.  

In terms of form upsets it was dramatic and it sure caused an implosion in the England camp, much vaunted as "big match players" with "mental strength" - well they went to pieces big style after that one!

Hey there

France beat Canada 46-19, albeit with a couple of late tries.

England were probably just about in as as poor form as France after narrowly beating Argentina and Scotland in the pools. I wouldn't say it was an upset. I don't remember England being "smashed" either. It was 19-12.

Different account, same old bullshine

I'm sure you've pretended to be American before? Come on, there are loads of nationalities/countries you haven't tried yet. You've only exhausted NZ, England, Argentina and Kazakhstan (have I missed any?). I think maybe you were Welsh once but it's difficult to keep count!

I was thinking of RWC`s in particular not just 2015 and of course depth of squads
matter.Sadly I don`t think Scotland have the required resources BUT probably 7
Tier 1 sides have potentially.
Hi, 7and 1/2.there is more to Rugby than just the RWC but try telling that to the train
spotters here.

Why Biltong I`ve made a believer of you too
Hi,FAO you are right few sides have beaten ALL the SH sides but it wasn't just England
under SCW post war.France and Wales have beaten all the SH sides,Ireland ,Scotland
all but NZ,

Australia with the establishment of a tier 2 Club comp on the ITM.and Currie Cup lines
with the likes of.Genia,Cooper,Moore,Pocock,Speight,O`Connor plus Leafano very impressed
with him.Will be a force again when they start winning then League will suffer crowd losses
instead.

As to extending the RWC at the cost of Club Rugby why not it`s supposed to be the
Holy Grail.PLayers with teams knocked out could still be released early.

I believe most rugby supporters regard the World cup with much more entusiasm and regard than the IRB rankings.

To win the RWC is a lot easier than topping the rankings, all you need is a bit of fortune over a three week period and with the way the cards falling the right way a country could make it to the final. On the other hand a better performing country could suffer some misfortune and be out in the early play offs.

To top the World rankings is out of reach of most International teams aspirations, as it requires cosistant dominant results over quite some period of time and only two countries play rugby to the standard of accuracy and domination required to accumulate the points, for that to be possible.

World rankings to me is not all that important, wins are.

I understand why some hold a lot of value to world rankings, but the reality is when you compare your head to head to every opponent will tell the how good you really are, rankings can only put you into a false sense of superiority, you can temporarily increase your ranking over other teams, sometimes whilst you not even playing.

Then to have bragging rights over a team that has beaten you over the recent past is tom foolery.

Agreed you can temporarily increase your ranking over other teams....But not ALL teams.

I could imagine the bun fights if there weren't IRB rankings though. There'd be fans thinking they supported the best team since sliced bread using algebra if they beat certain teams. It'd be interminably tiresome. For me, the RWC is the pinnacle amongst many slightly smaller peaks in the 4 year cycle. Rugby is good like that.

SneakySideStep wrote:The way the competition is structured, you have to win three games in the knockout phase, two or three of which may be against "top" opposition (which I define as any of the "big 5" who have competed in a RWC final to date). Given some luck and some unusual results (cf RWC 2007), that could even be reduced to one.

Given that, the big 3 SH sides will always be in there - if they hit a good patch over a couple of weeks they can take down any other team in successive weekends. England can do the same with their strength in depth and ability to resort to a power game if needs be. A few years ago you'd have said the same about France, but they seem in a terrible mess at international level at the moment. Ireland and Wales do not have great records against the SH, so would need some luck from the draw/results elsewhere to get near a final - it's not out of the question but a little unlikely. Scotland, Argentina and Italy - in their current form - could be competitive on their day, but are unlikely to reproduce such form over a series of games against different opposition.

Yes Sneaky, this is exactly the way I see it.

I could actually see either Wales or Ireland win 3,4 or even 5 in a row in a future RWC. That would make it 7 competitive nations. Then you can even throw in a wildcard team like Scotland or Samoa to make it 8.

It will just depend who is in their Groups and then only a couple more epic wins in a row to win a Final. The odds may look slim right now but anything is possible. All it takes is for a few hours of epic rugby lined up with a particular opposition, the weather conditions of the day, the bounce of the ball, the ref and the mind sets, skills and fortunes of the players involved. An upset win is inevitable as the opportunities present themselves to create the scenario described above.

However, I'm not so sure this will happen next September-October. It could. That would be great for the game.
We'd then be in for 10-100 years gloating from the Welsh (fair enough they've earned it!) or 3.3-33 years gloating from the Irish (they are on special discount odds already which loses more interest after a while)  

Even though there are realistically only two contenders and it is unlikely there will ever be more than 5 capable of winning the thing the RWC is undoubtedly the pinnacle of the game. It is the only opportunity some smaller nations will get to play the big teams and be shown on global TV.

I personally would change the format to have 32 teams in regional qualifying for the last 16 rather than the "friendlies" that teams use to warm-up for the tournament.

An RWC ticketing haiku:

This World Cup morning,
But did I submit the form?
No luck with Gmail.

[bows]

Tickets expensive
The all blacks will win for sure
I'll just watch at home

Biltong wrote:
beale is touring to Europe, he copped a fine for 45 000 Aussie Dollars.

He isn't touring. Cheika was told on the plane to Europe that Beale was available after payment of the fine, but declined to include him in the squad.

Re. the argument of a 'closed shop' for rugby world cup winners...

4 winners in 7 tournaments is similar in terms of "variety" compared to football and cricket.

Football - 8 winners in 20 tournaments
Cricket - 5 winners in 10 tournaments

Re. the Aussies. Even at a low ebb they're often more than a match for most NH sides. I'm always confident England can beat them at home though.

The World Cup is the pinnacle, but there's lots of rugby to enjoy in between.

I'd never take a win-ratio or a ranking over winning the big one. If you're good enough to the win the thing then you're probably doing pretty well with both anyway. Has a side ever not been No1 in the world after winning the World Cup?

Once you have your name o the RWC it is there forever. No need to sacrifice a win rate for another "hope you win the CUp"

To aim for the ultimate trophy and hoping everything falls in place in a 6 week window every four years is but a tiny period in a four year cycle.

I would much rather south African coaches fuss less about the RWC and rather just focus on building a great team, if everything falls in place great, if it doesn't then you have achieved nothing if that is your only aim.

Fact is Cyril, when you win the big one it is the start of teams starting to decline as
many players go out at the top.
Only in 1991,1999,2003,2011 were the RWC winners the worlds best at the time
1987,1995 debatable and 2007 probably not.BUT there has NEVER been a unworthy
RWC winner you beat what you meet.

Only one side has established a sustained unbeaten record over any time NZ 1987
nearly 4 years.Every other side has sustained at least one loss within a year of
winning it.

In some cases it has lead up to nearly a decade in the doldrums only later being
rebuilt.That includes at times NZ,SA,AUS and England .

Cyril wrote:Re. the argument of a 'closed shop' for rugby world cup winners...

4 winners in 7 tournaments is similar in terms of "variety" compared to football and cricket.

Football - 8 winners in 20 tournaments
Cricket - 5 winners in 10 tournaments

Re. the Aussies. Even at a low ebb they're often more than a match for most NH sides. I'm always confident England can beat them at home though.

The World Cup is the pinnacle, but there's lots of rugby to enjoy in between.

I'd never take a win-ratio or a ranking over winning the big one. If you're good enough to the win the thing then you're probably doing pretty well with both anyway. Has a side ever not been No1 in the world after winning the World Cup?

England were Number one in the early 2000s when the rankings were invented, but since then only South Africa and New Zealand have been number one.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:Re. the argument of a 'closed shop' for rugby world cup winners...

4 winners in 7 tournaments is similar in terms of "variety" compared to football and cricket.

Football - 8 winners in 20 tournaments
Cricket - 5 winners in 10 tournaments

Re. the Aussies. Even at a low ebb they're often more than a match for most NH sides. I'm always confident England can beat them at home though.

The World Cup is the pinnacle, but there's lots of rugby to enjoy in between.

I'd never take a win-ratio or a ranking over winning the big one. If you're good enough to the win the thing then you're probably doing pretty well with both anyway. Has a side ever not been No1 in the world after winning the World Cup?

 England were Number one in the early 2000s when the rankings were  invented, but since then only South Africa and New Zealand have been number one.

So...

England were No.1 after 2003
SA were No.1 after 2007
NZ were No.1 after 2011

So, the answer is no

emack2 wrote:Fact is Cyril, when you win the big one it is the start of teams starting to decline as
many players go out at the top.

That's natural in sport. The aim is to be able to develop sides and not have the big drop-off. Something England failed to do after 2003. Still wouldn't want to swap the trophy though

The whole notion that teams don't go out to win unless it's the RWC as an excuse for losing games between world cups is a nonsense anyway. Every team goes out to win always. I'm sick of hearing four years of excuses and then the grand "we didn't target this World Cup anyway, we are building for X+4 years". It's just utter nonsense and disrespects the opposition.

TobyBryant wrote:The whole notion that teams don't go out to win unless it's the RWC as an excuse for losing games between world cups is a nonsense anyway. Every team goes out to win always. I'm sick of hearing four years of excuses and then the grand "we didn't target this World Cup anyway, we are building for X+4 years".  It's just utter nonsense and disrespects the opposition.

True.. yet not 100% true.

Of course teams go out to win.

But teams also know that they have to prepare for the future and sometimes that means cutting guys who won't be around in 4 years time.

Take John Smit. SA were over reliant on his captaincy, his leadership. Should have retired him in 2009 and built a new side around a new captain. By 2011 they would have been superior to the one SA churned out in the end. They should have cut him, suffered a little more in 2010 for the greater good.

When Jacques Kallis entered test cricket he was averaging <20 runs per innings for the first few years. Most said he was thrown in too early yet his average at the end of his career was 56! SA and he needed the time to get used to test cricket. They took a few losses most probably for his inclusion but in the end it was worth it.

Ask a coach if he had to play a one off test to win a huge prize and I think the test side would look a little different (not completely) from the one they churn out say a week later (injuries permitting) for a bog standard friendly against the same opposition, the same circumstances etc.

That's a good analysis fa. There are probably only two rugby playing nations that have the luxury of not having a constant need to juggle short and long term planning in the way they prepare for tests. The All Blacks, because their player pipeline is so strong that they can develop new players without materially weakening their side. And the French, because their players appear to be immune to any influence from coaches or selection. [/remove tongue from cheek].

That said, the effects play out at different levels. I have no doubt that when the provisional XXIII are picked the week before a match, the coaches and players are giving their all to win the match with that particular bunch of players and that particular set of tactics.

However, in selecting the wider training squad and the style of play the coaches may be looking at the longer term and might throw out tactics that have worked or players who still have something to give internationally for the sake of longer term development.

The trick is to get to that All Blacks position, where there always seems to be a backup player available who knows the system, can perform at international level and has some experience, and a steady stream of new players to be introduced. England have probably lost some games they could have won (most notably vs the SH in the 2012 AIs and Paris in the 2014 6N) for the sake of building that pipeline. It'll be interesting to see if they can get there.

kingraf wrote:Tickets expensive
The all blacks will win for sure
I'll just watch at home

They are unquestionably favorites but I wouldnt put too much money on the ABs to win. I think the gap is closing. SA got a win and Australia, Ireland and England have come close recently and I would never write the French off v NZ. NZ have a tough enough draw too post pool stages.

Presuming they win their group which they always do they could very easily face a scenario where they would have to beat SA, France and England to win the tournament. If not SA then potentially Aus and if not France possibly Ireland. Their draw couldnt really be much tougher I reckon.

I agree Guns... no foregone conclusion.

NZ will have to be better than 2011 to win. A lot better.

They will almost certainly have to face the boks and perhaps England in Twickenham in a RWC final which  will be a tough nut to crack. Think SA in 95 Ellis Park.

in 87 they faced only France out of the big sides to win the trophy. In 2011 they faced again only France (albeit twice) to win.

They will almost certainly have to face SA, odds on England in the final and for me odds on France in the QF. That is as tough as they come.

So to get to the final they will have to beat France and SA. Not easy. I can imagine both sides will smash them up a bit leaving them a little bruised.

Then they have a final to deal with.

England on the other  hand will probably have to face Scotland and Ireland. Ireland will be tough but its not quite the same task as the boks.

Why are the times off? You didnt post that message at 9:32 pm?

Ah,the invincible Bok Myth theory again?Sa played in 1987 they would have walked it
ditto 1991.AB`s need to be better than 2011 a lot better?only beat France twice I seem
to recall them.

Winning a semi -final against Australia,you know the side that knocked the Boks out.
Well heres a newsflash maybe just maybe the current side is better than 2011,maybe
just maybe,they are better than any other side in the world today.

The Boks,England,Australia are not yet the finished article and in a knockout tournament
anything is possible.The arrogance of saying just winning a Group means a certain final
appearance astounds me.

I`m not writing off ANY side but for the Boks just to reach the final they have to beat
numbers 1,3 or 4.By know means impossible and Australia or NZ are just as likely
to beat SA at sea level as vice versa.

By the way I don`t expect NZ to win RWC either.

The ABs win v France was aided by some quite flaky refereeing. France were more than a match for NZ that day.

emack2 wrote:Ah,the invincible Bok Myth theory again?Sa played in 1987 they would have walked it
ditto 1991.AB`s need to be better than 2011 a lot better?only beat France twice I seem
to recall them.

Winning a semi -final against Australia,you know the side that knocked the Boks out.
Well heres a newsflash maybe just maybe the current side is better than 2011,maybe
just maybe,they are better than any other side in the world today.

The Boks,England,Australia are not yet the finished article and in a knockout tournament
anything is possible.The arrogance of saying just winning a Group means a certain final
appearance astounds me.

I`m not writing off ANY side but for the Boks just to reach the final they have to beat
numbers 1,3 or 4.By know means impossible and Australia or NZ are just as likely
to beat SA at sea level as vice versa.

By the way I don`t expect NZ to win RWC either.

Alan

I think you're missing the point.

Nothing to suggest either 87 or 11 were not deserved. In all honesty I think the boks in 87 would have found it difficult given they were in NZ.

Its more a question of tough matches

No disrespect to those outside the big 5 teams but take SA's route in 2007... the easiest since 87 for sure. Argentina and Fiji in the KO stages before the final.

But play 2 tough KO matches pre final and it will take your toll

In terms of those who have faced 2 big 5 teams to get to the final I can only think of

England in 2007 (AUS & FRA)

who have faced 2 big 5 nations in the KO stages and even got to the final. The rest all failed.

Its a tough ask to play 3 major teams on 3 successive weekends in KO rugby.

Alan wrote:Ah,the invincible Bok Myth theory again

Can't recall anyone suggesting that. Sensitive perhaps?

Biltong wrote:

Alan wrote:Ah,the invincible Bok Myth theory again

Can't recall anyone suggesting that. Sensitive perhaps?

It is a little like when Michael Jordan went to play baseball in the 90s. The team that won (the rockets) were the champs but a little voice in their head said... would we have beaten the bulls had they had Michael Jordan in them (even though the bulls were KO'd before the final).

NZ were a top side nevertheless and at home. Probably would have made it home. 91 I think its far more debatable. The settings would have suited Naas and the boks game to the T.

fa0019 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:The whole notion that teams don't go out to win unless it's the RWC as an excuse for losing games between world cups is a nonsense anyway. Every team goes out to win always. I'm sick of hearing four years of excuses and then the grand "we didn't target this World Cup anyway, we are building for X+4 years".  It's just utter nonsense and disrespects the opposition.

True.. yet not 100% true.

Of course teams go out to win.

But teams also know that they have to prepare for the future and sometimes that means cutting guys who won't be around in 4 years time.

Take John Smit. SA were over reliant on his captaincy, his leadership. Should have retired him in 2009 and built a new side around a new captain. By 2011 they would have been superior to the one SA churned out in the end. They should have cut him, suffered a little more in 2010 for the greater good.

When Jacques Kallis entered test cricket he was averaging <20 runs per innings for the first few years. Most said he was thrown in too early yet his average at the end of his career was 56! SA and he needed the time to get used to test cricket. They took a few losses most probably for his inclusion but in the end it was worth it.

Ask a coach if he had to play a one off test to win a huge prize and I think the test side would look a little different (not completely) from the one they churn out say a week later (injuries permitting) for a bog standard friendly against the same opposition, the same circumstances etc.

Interestingly enough enough you know full well Bok coaches are not allowed to lose a test match . The public will never take it and this whole idea of building towards a world cup is bull tbh. If you dont win it then you've sacrificed 3 years for nothing. Rather you win as many as you can when you can like the all blacks

Bullsbok wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:The whole notion that teams don't go out to win unless it's the RWC as an excuse for losing games between world cups is a nonsense anyway. Every team goes out to win always. I'm sick of hearing four years of excuses and then the grand "we didn't target this World Cup anyway, we are building for X+4 years".  It's just utter nonsense and disrespects the opposition.

True.. yet not 100% true.

Of course teams go out to win.

But teams also know that they have to prepare for the future and sometimes that means cutting guys who won't be around in 4 years time.

Take John Smit. SA were over reliant on his captaincy, his leadership. Should have retired him in 2009 and built a new side around a new captain. By 2011 they would have been superior to the one SA churned out in the end. They should have cut him, suffered a little more in 2010 for the greater good.

When Jacques Kallis entered test cricket he was averaging <20 runs per innings for the first few years. Most said he was thrown in too early yet his average at the end of his career was 56! SA and he needed the time to get used to test cricket. They took a few losses most probably for his inclusion but in the end it was worth it.

Ask a coach if he had to play a one off test to win a huge prize and I think the test side would look a little different (not completely) from the one they churn out say a week later (injuries permitting) for a bog standard friendly against the same opposition, the same circumstances etc.

Interestingly enough enough you know full well Bok coaches are not allowed to lose a test match . The public will never take it and this whole idea of building towards a world cup is bull tbh. If you dont win it then you've sacrificed 3 years for nothing. Rather you win as many as you can when you can like the all blacks

You don't go into matches thinking you will lose but you have to take calculated risks at some point. You have to throw in the kid into the storm to get big match exposure.... else when will you see if he can sink or swim.

Without a shadow of doubt Meyer has done it. PDV was too scared to do it although I think he was too worried that the bulls would have had too much influence had Smit retired at the end of 2009.

So in that case Peter DeVilliers was actually a really good coach. A 57% win record v the ABs suggests he was anyway.

His record was a contradiction in terms, look at his record against Australia. Oh, and his record against NZ was 45%

GunsGerms wrote:So in that case Peter DeVilliers was actually a really good coach. A 57% win record v the ABs suggests he was anyway.

Not quite. 5 in 11 so 46% but still decent.

but each situation is different. Given the squad he had and the squad NZ had was 5 in 11 acceptable? I would say I think had white stayed on I think he would have had another 3N and got SA to the SFs of the RWC, but no more.

I think it should have been a little better given the above but he did ok vs. NZ that's for sure.

AUS had his number though and they knew it. They played 12, lost 8 even though AUS were perhaps the weakest of the 3N in the cycle.

Biltong wrote:His record was a contradiction in terms, look at his record against Australia. Oh, and his record against NZ was 45%

beat me to it BB

but your retort is strangely similar to mine... you getting chills???

Biltong wrote:His record was a contradiction in terms, look at his record against Australia. Oh, and his record against NZ was 45%

Still good though. Whats Meyer's record v NZ?